Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eglinton Bus Garage (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If someone feels like merging the content to TTC yards, call me and I'll userfy them. yandman 08:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eglinton Bus Garage

Those 3 articles were nominated for deletion, deleted, restored, again deleted and the deletion has been contested. Since the previous AfD was closed early (after I, the closing admin, considered it a resonable move), I list the articles here again in a single nomination. The initial reason was lack of notability. Thank you for your consideration. Tone 20:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into an article about the garages (and car barns?) of the TTC, like Bus depots of the New York City Transit Authority. These things do get coverage in reliable sources, often because they contribute negatively to the neighborhood, but also for other reasons. --NE2 21:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Notability is established through the book described at http://www.leonardshoup.com/si/131681.html and other resources such as http://transit.toronto.on.ca/bus/8307.shtml -- Eastmain (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Again. A bus garage? We argue sometimes about whether some things are inherently notable, but I think some things are inherently unnotable, and bus garages are among them. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments to keep so far are not based on inherent notability, but notability guidelines such as WP:N.--Oakshade (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't see the substancial coverage that makes it meet WP:N yet. Passing mention on books isn't one. Secret ^account 18:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources indicated by Eastmain. The article on Danforth Carhouse and Bus Garage is substantial and I will assume good faith that the pages of the other source indicate non-trivial coverage. --Oakshade (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Strong Delete per the sources provided by Eastmain. The source on the Danforth Carhouse and Bus Garage is far from substiantial. It's from the Toronto Transit website! and it's a bus garage on their system, not independent of the subject, The other is a picture book on the Toronto Transport System, doesn't explain the bus garages in general. Not everything that is mentioned in a source deserves an article. If not I, along with millions of others people, places, events, celebs clothing, cats on trees, etc will get an article. Secret ^account 17:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 09:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm hesitant to delete any geographical/architectural topic, but this is a textbook example of trivial mentions. As Secret mentioned, not everything that gets a mention in a source is notable enough to deserve an article. There's a tendency to want to keep any article for which sources are found, but in this case, the sources - although reliable - aren't enough to establish notability. NE2's suggested merge might also be a good idea, but only if there's enough material. Graymornings_(talk) 11:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's a... bus garage? Mentions given are trivial at best, and seriously... it's a bus garage! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. The sources show the garage exists. They do not show that there is anything special about it compared to the hundreds of thousands of other bus garages in the world. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into TTC yards, garages, and facilities. This page contains a list of the bus garages, as well as other yards/facilities operated by the TTC. The articles marked for deletion should be merged into the TTC yards, garages, and facilities article. Heights^{(Want to talk?)} 00:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah - there is a merge target already. That's definitely a good place to merge. --NE2 01:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a bus garage directory. ¨¨ victor falk 06:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge Notability is not a matter of importance but of the existence of sources. Since it is agreed that sources exist for this, our policy, WP:PRESERVE, is to keep the information, consolidating it by means of merger if that seems best. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only source provided that actually refers to this garage is on Transit Toronto's old site, and is hardly "independent of the subject", as required by the GNG. Other mentions so far have been trivial at best. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

There are sources such as this which detail operational aspects of this bus garage and these are quite adequate to demonstrate notability. And, even if we decided that there was insufficient material for a separate article, we should consolidate the material under a broader heading per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. These are policies while your delete reasoning that "it's a bus garage!" seems to be mere prejudice which fails other policies such as WP:CENSOR. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be an internal document of some sort. If that makes this bus garage notable, then corporate policy 42/D which I was working on at work today is also notable, because hey, someone took the time to write a document on it! In addition, this seems to be about another bus garage anyway, not this bus garage, mentions of Eglinton are limited to an offhand mention of one of the operational aspects there, so notability is not really demostrated. And the emotive use of words like "censor" really doesn't help this discussion at all, can we please stick to the facts rather than attempting to smear each other? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

WP:PRESERVE isn't policy, and the source you shown is from the department website, not independent as a source. Still fails WP:N. Secret ^account 23:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability (which also isn't policy) is about whether there's enough information to write a complete history. Even though the TTC is the operator of these garages or successor thereof, we have no reason do believe they're being incomplete or promotional, or otherwise unsuitable. --NE2 00:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a guideline, WP:PRESERVE is not even that, it's an essay. Secret ^account 23:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PRESERVE has been marked as official Wikipedia policy since October 2004. A handful of people disputing it now does not change that status. DHowell (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In 2004, everything was considered policy, remember consensus can change, and that's the case with PRESERVE Secret ^account 23:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to a consolidated list, but consensus to merge should be established on the articles' talk pages, where debate won't be artificially colored by a five-day deadline and the possiblity of deletion. DHowell (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I can think of little that is less notable. Stifle (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The reference http://transit.toronto.on.ca/bus/8307.shtml is independent of the Toronto Transit Commission and lists several references itself. The site http://transit.toronto.on.ca/ states that: "Transit Toronto is an information site by transit enthusiasts. This is not the official website of the TTC or GO Transit." The TTC's official site is http://www.ttc.ca/ , and some documents related to the TTC can also be found at the City of Toronto website at http://www.city.toronto.on.ca or http://www.toronto.ca
- So it's a website for transit enthusiasts, so it's a fan site, tell me how that's reliable? Secret ^account 23:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.